With Gun Control, Cost Benefit Analysis Is Amoral

[Nate Smith 0]

Harry Binswanger wrote a very good article in Forbes yesterday about gun control laws. I like his attempt to change the conversation by looking at the issue from an individualistic perspective instead of a collectivist one.

But I'm not yet convinced that a cost-benefit analysis is the wrong way to look at the issue. It seems to me that many (or all?) principles are properly formed by using this type of analysis. For example, we believe it is proper to forcibly quarantine someone who has a very dangerous disease but not someone who has the flu. And while bearing arms is a right, bearing nuclear weapons is not. Aren't these principles formed at least in part from a cost-benefit analysis?

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

And while bearing arms is a right, bearing nuclear weapons is not. Aren't these principles formed at least in part from a cost-benefit analysis?

Man carriable fire arms are aimable weapons that can be used for defending one's self or one's family. A-Bombs are wide area weapons which can destroy a great deal of property and kill many people (including women and children); Clearly an A-bomb or other nuke is NOT a self defense weapon.

One has the absolute right to defend one's own life and that of his family. Fire arms (such as rifles and pistols) are appropriate weapons that can be deployed to exercise this absolute right.

ruveyn

[ewv 0]

All laws are only properly based on the protection of the rights of the individual. Costs of how to implement them are relevent but secondary to their purpose and justification. Basing laws on "cost benefit analysis" is collective utilitarianism.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

All laws are only properly based on the protection of the rights of the individual. Costs of how to implement them are relevent but secondary to their purpose and justification. Basing laws on "cost benefit analysis" is collective utilitarianism.

Should a government ever pass a law that it cannot afford to enforce justly?

ruveyn

[ewv 0]

Laws that can't be enforced justly are a contradiction of the purpose of law and become criminal themselves. Unenforceable laws are bad law and unjust laws are worse. Enforcing laws requires physical means and the cost is part of that. When the cost becomes a "cost" to the innocent imposed by a police state there is no excuse for it. If the idea behind a potential law is in principle just, then find some way to formulate it and implement it that is enforceable in practice and is just, even if limited results are all that is possible. Enforceable doesn't mean that all the crimes will be prevented or all the criminals will be caught. Sometimes they get away with it no matter what the resources.

[Leonid 0]

There is a difference between guns for self-defense like hand guns, single shot hunting rifles and weapons of assault, like automatic/semi-automatic rifles, hand grenades machine guns etc...Such a weapons don't contribute to self-defense and its possession represents a threat of initiation of force. Therefore they have to be banned. It's pity that Harry Binswanger failed to make this distinction. He said "Laws prohibiting or regulating guns across the board represent the evil of preventive law and should be abolished."- which means that any person can possess any military grade weapon including automatic rifles, machine guns, " Grad" rockets and maybe even a small jet fighter.There should be a law which prevents people from possessing weapons of assault, since the intended purpose of such a weaponry is not self-defense but the initiation of force and everybody who possesses such a gun has the intention to initiate force. Therefore a law which prohibits these weapons is not preventive but retaliatory law. The law, however, should make a provision for gun collectors, who can have anything they want, providing that their weapons are disabled.

[Carlos 0]

All laws are only properly based on the protection of the rights of the individual. Costs of how to implement them are relevent but secondary to their purpose and justification. Basing laws on "cost benefit analysis" is collective utilitarianism.

While enacting laws based only on "cost benefit analysis" would be collective utilitarianism, this hardly means we should ignore the mountains of studies which have obliterated the practicality of gun control. Regarding them as "endlessly battling statistical studies" as Binswanger does gives far too much ground, and almost makes it sound as if neither side in the gun-control debate can be empirically proven right.

These kinds of "top-down" approaches to issues, where one starts with abstractions and deduces what laws we should have in some concrete situation, are probably totally useless with the average Americans who are not philosophically inclined.

[Nate Smith 0]

All laws are only properly based on the protection of the rights of the individual. Costs of how to implement them are relevent but secondary to their purpose and justification. Basing laws on "cost benefit analysis" is collective utilitarianism.

Do you think there are any difficult "border" cases?

For example, many claim that fully auotmatic weapons go beyond tools of self defense. What if a person wanted to put land mines in their yard to protect from intruders? And the argument is often made the the biggest threat to individual rights is the government, and an armed populous is important for that reason. What if someone claimed that for this reason people should have the right to own missiles, tanks and fighter jets?

I don't find it easy to determine where to "draw the line."

[ewv 0]

All laws are only properly based on the protection of the rights of the individual. Costs of how to implement them are relevent but secondary to their purpose and justification. Basing laws on "cost benefit analysis" is collective utilitarianism.

While enacting laws based only on "cost benefit analysis" would be collective utilitarianism, this hardly means we should ignore the mountains of studies which have obliterated the practicality of gun control. Regarding them as "endlessly battling statistical studies" as Binswanger does gives far too much ground, and almost makes it sound as if neither side in the gun-control debate can be empirically proven right.

These kinds of "top-down" approaches to issues, where one starts with abstractions and deduces what laws we should have in some concrete situation, are probably totally useless with the average Americans who are not philosophically inclined.

Applying principles to formulate proper laws are not deductions from abstractions. It requires understanding facts and context in accordance with principles and a proper purpose. Legitimate studies are useful to determine what else may be required in modifying, repealing or adding laws that address new facts. That is much different than the demagoguery we see manipulating statistics with emotional non sequiturs, sound bites and "narratives" for a statist political agenda.

[ewv 0]

All laws are only properly based on the protection of the rights of the individual. Costs of how to implement them are relevent but secondary to their purpose and justification. Basing laws on "cost benefit analysis" is collective utilitarianism.

Do you think there are any difficult "border" cases?

For example, many claim that fully auotmatic weapons go beyond tools of self defense. What if a person wanted to put land mines in their yard to protect from intruders? And the argument is often made the the biggest threat to individual rights is the government, and an armed populous is important for that reason. What if someone claimed that for this reason people should have the right to own missiles, tanks and fighter jets?

I don't find it easy to determine where to "draw the line."

There can be border line cases in any realm. The examples you gave in the name of automatic weapons are not among them. Automatic and semi-automatic guns targeted for being banned are not synonymous with military weapons.

Resolving borderline cases is a conceptual activity of classification that requires first having relevant concepts, without which 'borderline case' becomes in practice mere a-conceptual confusion.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

For example, many claim that fully auotmatic weapons go beyond tools of self defense. What if a person wanted to put land mines in their yard to protect from intruders? And the argument is often made the the biggest threat to individual rights is the government, and an armed populous is important for that reason. What if someone claimed that for this reason people should have the right to own missiles, tanks and fighter jets?

I don't find it easy to determine where to "draw the line."

The right to keep and bear arms is a derived right from the basic right of self defense. Every human has the absolute right to defend his life against attack and also the lives of his family (spouse and children). The arms one needs to implement this right are such that they can be aimed and aimed specifically at the person or person's threatening one's life.

Area weapons are NOT arms of self defense. They are arms of WAR. They cannot be used for self defense because they may kill or injure persons who are not threatening the user. This is different from war, where collateral damage is an acceptable side effect of destroying the will of the enemy (that means its government, and leaders). War is not the same as self defense to the argument that one should be able to possess weapons of mass destruction or weapons that have area wide effects, is a bogus argument.

ruveyn

[Paul's Here 0]

For example, many claim that fully auotmatic weapons go beyond tools of self defense. What if a person wanted to put land mines in their yard to protect from intruders? And the argument is often made the the biggest threat to individual rights is the government, and an armed populous is important for that reason. What if someone claimed that for this reason people should have the right to own missiles, tanks and fighter jets?

I don't find it easy to determine where to "draw the line."

The right to keep and bear arms is a derived right from the basic right of self defense. Every human has the absolute right to defend his life against attack and also the lives of his family (spouse and children). The arms one needs to implement this right are such that they can be aimed and aimed specifically at the person or person's threatening one's life.

Area weapons are NOT arms of self defense. They are arms of WAR. They cannot be used for self defense because they may kill or injure persons who are not threatening the user. This is different from war, where collateral damage is an acceptable side effect of destroying the will of the enemy (that means its government, and leaders). War is not the same as self defense to the argument that one should be able to possess weapons of mass destruction or weapons that have area wide effects, is a bogus argument.

ruveyn

Have you forgot about self defense from government invasion? Any rational person who wants to own "area weapons" would know not to use them when a single armed burglar breaks into his house. But why shouldn't I be able to own weapons that will engage either a foreign enemy or an internal enemy when they are invading my town/city?

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

For example, many claim that fully auotmatic weapons go beyond tools of self defense. What if a person wanted to put land mines in their yard to protect from intruders? And the argument is often made the the biggest threat to individual rights is the government, and an armed populous is important for that reason. What if someone claimed that for this reason people should have the right to own missiles, tanks and fighter jets?

I don't find it easy to determine where to "draw the line."

The right to keep and bear arms is a derived right from the basic right of self defense. Every human has the absolute right to defend his life against attack and also the lives of his family (spouse and children). The arms one needs to implement this right are such that they can be aimed and aimed specifically at the person or person's threatening one's life.

Area weapons are NOT arms of self defense. They are arms of WAR. They cannot be used for self defense because they may kill or injure persons who are not threatening the user. This is different from war, where collateral damage is an acceptable side effect of destroying the will of the enemy (that means its government, and leaders). War is not the same as self defense to the argument that one should be able to possess weapons of mass destruction or weapons that have area wide effects, is a bogus argument.

ruveyn

Have you forgot about self defense from government invasion? Any rational person who wants to own "area weapons" would know not to use them when a single armed burglar breaks into his house. But why shouldn't I be able to own weapons that will engage either a foreign enemy or an internal enemy when they are invading my town/city?

I was talking about individual self defense or an individual defending his family against violent criminal types. This is not the same as war which is organized on a mass and collective scale. The weapons appropriate for war are no appropriate for individual self defense.

Be serious. Would you explode an A-bomb to keep a thief from breaking into your house or car jacking you. No sir. It is not the same thing.

ruveyn

[ewv 0]

Have you forgot about self defense from government invasion? Any rational person who wants to own "area weapons" would know not to use them when a single armed burglar breaks into his house. But why shouldn't I be able to own weapons that will engage either a foreign enemy or an internal enemy when they are invading my town/city?

The discussion (in contrast to statist demagoguery) of gun control laws is normally in the context of civilized society and what is proper for government to keep the use of force under objective control in accordance with the purpose of government. In such a context criminal acts are the exception and relatively rare compared with all human activities. An invasion by a foreign enemy, including Klingons posing as Kenyans in an internal invasion, is a breakdown in civilization. For that, join the military.

If an internal enemy like mobs of union thugs and other Obama rabble seeking "revenge" through overt violence becomes an open threat that the police can't deal with then there is a breakdown and we are no longer in a civilized context and discussion of ordinary laws is irrelevant. It is a good reason for the right to keep the kind of semi-automatic and automatic guns that are already common. But don't expect any government, good or bad, to allow some of its citizens to maintain the equivalent of standing armies with A-bombs, etc. It's not hard to guess what kinds of people would exploit that. And it would be futile to try to convince the government that you should be able defend against its own internal invasion and overt overthrow of the Constitution for the same reason it would do it.

[Paul's Here 0]

Have you forgot about self defense from government invasion? Any rational person who wants to own "area weapons" would know not to use them when a single armed burglar breaks into his house. But why shouldn't I be able to own weapons that will engage either a foreign enemy or an internal enemy when they are invading my town/city?

The discussion (in contrast to statist demagoguery) of gun control laws is normally in the context of civilized society and what is proper for government to keep the use of force under objective control in accordance with the purpose of government. In such a context criminal acts are the exception and relatively rare compared with all human activities. An invasion by a foreign enemy, including Klingons posing as Kenyans in an internal invasion, is a breakdown in civilization. For that, join the military.

If an internal enemy like mobs of union thugs and other Obama rabble seeking "revenge" through overt violence becomes an open threat that the police can't deal with then there is a breakdown and we are no longer in a civilized context and discussion of ordinary laws is irrelevant. It is a good reason for the right to keep the kind of semi-automatic and automatic guns that are already common. But don't expect any government, good or bad, to allow some of its citizens to maintain the equivalent of standing armies with A-bombs, etc. It's not hard to guess what kinds of people would exploit that. And it would be futile to try to convince the government that you should be able defend against its own internal invasion and overt overthrow of the Constitution for the same reason it would do it.

I think if the American people were a little more rebellious, it would be a good thing against the statism in Washington.

Shays' Rebellion — a sometimes-violent uprising of farmers angry over conditions in Massachusetts in 1786 — prompted Thomas Jefferson to express the view that "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing" for America. Unlike other leaders of The Republic, Jefferson felt that the people had a right to express their grievances against the government, even if those grievances might take the form of violent action.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer/letter.html

[ewv 0]

Have you forgot about self defense from government invasion? Any rational person who wants to own "area weapons" would know not to use them when a single armed burglar breaks into his house. But why shouldn't I be able to own weapons that will engage either a foreign enemy or an internal enemy when they are invading my town/city?

The discussion (in contrast to statist demagoguery) of gun control laws is normally in the context of civilized society and what is proper for government to keep the use of force under objective control in accordance with the purpose of government. In such a context criminal acts are the exception and relatively rare compared with all human activities. An invasion by a foreign enemy, including Klingons posing as Kenyans in an internal invasion, is a breakdown in civilization. For that, join the military.

If an internal enemy like mobs of union thugs and other Obama rabble seeking "revenge" through overt violence becomes an open threat that the police can't deal with then there is a breakdown and we are no longer in a civilized context and discussion of ordinary laws is irrelevant. It is a good reason for the right to keep the kind of semi-automatic and automatic guns that are already common. But don't expect any government, good or bad, to allow some of its citizens to maintain the equivalent of standing armies with A-bombs, etc. It's not hard to guess what kinds of people would exploit that. And it would be futile to try to convince the government that you should be able defend against its own internal invasion and overt overthrow of the Constitution for the same reason it would do it.

I think if the American people were a little more rebellious, it would be a good thing against the statism in Washington.

Shays' Rebellion — a sometimes-violent uprising of farmers angry over conditions in Massachusetts in 1786 — prompted Thomas Jefferson to express the view that "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing" for America. Unlike other leaders of The Republic, Jefferson felt that the people had a right to express their grievances against the government, even if those grievances might take the form of violent action.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer/letter.html

What would be a good thing? Shay's Rebellion was suppressed by government force and two of the leaders were subsequently hung. The government has a lot more power to crush people today and there is much less individualism to oppose it even without a physical rebellion.

Arguing for the legality of more powerful military weapons right up to A-bombs in anticipation of a revolution is a different issue than the normal right to keep guns for self defense, the arbitrary use of such massive weapons doesn't sound like a practical idea at all considering the inevitable consequences, and such an argument on behalf of the right to keep guns wouldn't get very far. It certainly wouldn't intimidate the government into backing off; it would only be another crisis to exploit for more oppression. You could get in a lot of trouble with a paranoid, power hungry government just for saying it out of understandable bitterness towards the decline of the country into statism, let alone advocating it seriously.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

I think if the American people were a little more rebellious, it would be a good thing against the statism in Washington.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson

Ruveyn

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

Here is a letter composed by Thomas Jefferson that addresses the issue of rebellion by the people in a masterful way. TJ may have been a spendthrift but he was also a master of the English language. Please read this. (Note to Forum manager -- this is a letter written by TJ in 1787, so there are no copyright issues)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: and very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a Chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: and what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion.^[1] The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? Thetree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted." - Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787^[2]

^{----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------}

^{Nobody writes that beautifully these days.}

^ruvey

[Leonid 0]

All laws are only properly based on the protection of the rights of the individual. Costs of how to implement them are relevent but secondary to their purpose and justification. Basing laws on "cost benefit analysis" is collective utilitarianism.

Do you think there are any difficult "border" cases?

For example, many claim that fully auotmatic weapons go beyond tools of self defense. What if a person wanted to put land mines in their yard to protect from intruders? And the argument is often made the the biggest threat to individual rights is the government, and an armed populous is important for that reason. What if someone claimed that for this reason people should have the right to own missiles, tanks and fighter jets?

I don't find it easy to determine where to "draw the line."

Anybody who puts land mines as a protection from intruders overuses his right of self-defense. The purpose of land mines is to kill and not every intruder deserves a death sentence. It is the government's job to define the exact meaning of self-defense by means of objective law.

[ewv 0]

All laws are only properly based on the protection of the rights of the individual. Costs of how to implement them are relevent but secondary to their purpose and justification. Basing laws on "cost benefit analysis" is collective utilitarianism.

Do you think there are any difficult "border" cases?

For example, many claim that fully auotmatic weapons go beyond tools of self defense. What if a person wanted to put land mines in their yard to protect from intruders? And the argument is often made the the biggest threat to individual rights is the government, and an armed populous is important for that reason. What if someone claimed that for this reason people should have the right to own missiles, tanks and fighter jets?

I don't find it easy to determine where to "draw the line."

Anybody who puts land mines as a protection from intruders overuses his right of self-defense. The purpose of land mines is to kill and not every intruder deserves a death sentence. It is the government's job to define the exact meaning of self-defense by means of objective law.

That is not an "overuse of the right of self defense". Setting traps that potentially kill innocent people is a different concept then self defense. It is not a matter of degree of "use of the right". Setting deadly traps that indiscriminately kill people is not "too much self defense".

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

That is not an "overuse of the right of self defense". Setting traps that potentially kill innocent people is a different concept then self defense. It is not a matter of degree of "use of the right". Setting deadly traps that indiscriminately kill people is not "too much self defense".

It is reckless endangerment.

ruveyn

[JohnRgt 0]

It's the sort of legal scholars we don't have today that would know where to draw this and many, many other lines. About all a normal person can do is know that there has to be a line. And not knowing where that line is isn't an argument for either disarmament or for popular legislation.

Much has been made of high capacity clips, both for high powered rifles and pistols. Fact is, a seasoned hobbyist can switch out a pistol clip in less than a second if he's engaged in a rapid fire sequence, while a riflemen can do it in a few.

Much has been made of the civilian version of military rifles like the AR and M series. Fact is, the civilian versions of these items simply look tougher than the hunting firearms so many are comfortable with. And ARs and Ms are far, far easier to use accurately than either shotguns or pistols, making them the ideal choice for personal defense.

[ewv 0]

That is not an "overuse of the right of self defense". Setting traps that potentially kill innocent people is a different concept then self defense. It is not a matter of degree of "use of the right". Setting deadly traps that indiscriminately kill people is not "too much self defense".

It is reckless endangerment.

Knowingly planting traps like that are worse than "reckless"!

[Paul's Here 0]

BURGLARY SUSPECT KILLED BY BOOBY-TRAP SHOTGUN

A burglary suspect was killed when he broke into a warehouse and tripped a booby-trapped shotgun, police said. Authorities said three youths with the teen-ager said they were looking for adventure.

A city ordinance prohibits the setting of booby traps at businesses, and violators can face misdemeanor charges, said city assistant district attorney Chuck Lepley. He said the ordinance was enacted because booby traps can backfire and injure the innocent. In cases where someone dies, whoever set the booby trap can be charged with murder, said Lepley.

[Abaco 0]

Harry Binswanger wrote a very good article in Forbes yesterday about gun control laws. I like his attempt to change the conversation by looking at the issue from an individualistic perspective instead of a collectivist one.

But I'm not yet convinced that a cost-benefit analysis is the wrong way to look at the issue. It seems to me that many (or all?) principles are properly formed by using this type of analysis. For example, we believe it is proper to forcibly quarantine someone who has a very dangerous disease but not someone who has the flu. And while bearing arms is a right, bearing nuclear weapons is not. Aren't these principles formed at least in part from a cost-benefit analysis?

If there is an entity that can willingly bastardize this approach, it's the government. I understand your point. However, I firmly believe that leftists in government talk about "assault rifles" with their eyes on my revolver. Your example involving the flu hits close to home for me, but I won't get into that here. We are starting to see the use of force by an aspect of the medical industry (in partnership with the government) here in Norcal. Government and force work together in a ratcheting effect. It gets an in, gets a hold and starts tightening down. Over a couple beers I could, and have, explain this very well.